SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35274/02
by Kateryna Vasylivna SULIMOVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrA.B. Baka, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Kateryna Vasylivna Sulimova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Askania-Nova, the Kherson region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 September 2001 the Chaplynka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,549[1] against the Askaniya-Nova State Agricultural Company in salary arrears.
On 18 October 2001 the Chaplynka City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
On 28 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment of 3 September 2001.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Chaplynka City Court of 3 September 2001. She invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and referred in substance to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She further complained about a violation of Articles 1, 2 § 1 and 17 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour.
THE LAW
Notice of the present application was given to the Government on 14 September 2004. By a letter of 27 May 2005, the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in her favour had been enforced in full and she did not want to pursue her application further. Therefore, she requested the Court to strike her case out of its list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléA.B. Baka
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Around 257 euros – “EUR”.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy